Does Voting Condone Violence Against Your Neighbor?

We’re all taught that voting is a near sacred rite in democratic societies with the United States being the preeminent democratic socieities of all western nations.  We’re commanded to understand what a grave responsibility we have as citizens of a democracy to select the right man, er, person, for the job.  We’re not always told the consequences of such a responsibility just that the responsibility is portentous.  But would Humphrey really have been so much better than Nixon?  Would he have pulled U.S. troops out of Vietnam any sooner?  Was Nixon so much better a president than LBJ? For the most part, the United States is a Rockefeller progressive welfare society with all of the standard social prorgrams locked in place.  Though we do have UPS, Fed Ex, DHL, and others, the U.S. government Post Office continues to control and dominate the majority of parcels and letters in the carrier market.  What about education?  We have to have public schools, right, else how would the kids learn any normative social behavior?  Don’t know how many times I’ve heard that question raised as if without public schools kids would be more inclined to violence or abberrant behavior not suited for public display.  Could Americans do withoyt voting? Should they, or is that the absurd notion of battered moonlight? Larken Rose raises a legitimate question: Does voting condone violence against your neighbor?

For our public school liberals and commies everywhere, the question alone has got to hurt their deep sense of controlling others.

Ouch!

You’re electing a guy who is going to use power over me to force me to do what he thinks I should do and force me to give him my money and hurt me if I don’t.

We know there’s violence behind it all.  Violently impose your agenda on me by voting for a third party.

Ouch!

Advocating violence, people know that this is bad.

Is voting a celebration over how great democracy is?  No.  It’s fighting over the guy with the club and what he’s going to do with it against your neighbor.  Not noble or civilized. It’s violent thuggery.

Voters hope the government is going to pay for either military, education, welfare, whatever they hope the government’s going to pay for will be taken forcibly.  Politicians are middle-men using an election cycle as an advanced auction of stolen goods.  Rose makes the joke that why don’t we get rid of the middle man.  You come to my door, shove a gun in my belly and ask for a specified amount of goods or money or possessions.  His point is well-taken, for there is no way that anyone would agree to commiting such an act of violence.  His point is that people are all the time delegating that stealing and violence. All the time.  I would add that with each election cycle we watch politicians masquerading as white knights, coming in to right every wrong, redress every past ill of the previous Commander-in-Chief, and paint a vision of greatness for the future.  Let me ask you–how’s that future working out for you?

This doesn’t mean that analyzing, talking, thinking about, and referencing politics does not have value.  It does.  It’s good to know how psychopaths work.  I mean who in their right mind would want to control the lives of 3.3 million people?  Is there admiration in that?  Is there a single presidents whom you have admired?  I remember how people loathed and resented George Bush.  Then after 7 years of Obama, Bush doesn’t look so bad in review.  Ditto with Clinton when Bush was President.  To this day, after all the apologies about waste, Clinton continues to get accolades for his suplus budget.  That budge surplus was a myth, one that continually gets peddled by himself and by his wife.  Here is what the Clinton surplus myth really looked like:

Robert Wenzel cites Dean Baker’s analysis as being pretty good:

There is widely held view in Washington policy circles that the economy was golden in the Clinton years. We had strong growth, low unemployment, rising real wages, a soaring stock market and huge budget surpluses. According to this myth, George W. Bush ruined this Eden with his tax cuts for the rich and wars that he didn’t pay for. While there are plenty of bad things that can be said about George W. Bush, his tax cuts for the rich and his wars (whether paid for or not), this story of paradise lost badly flunks the reality test.

At the most basic level, the chain of causation is fundamentally wrong. The driving force in this story was the soaring stock market, which was in fact a bubble. Stock prices had grown hugely out of line with the fundamentals of the economy. The ratio of stock prices to trend earnings at the market peak in 2000 was over 30 to 1, more than twice the historic average. It was inevitable that this bubble would burst and in fact the unwinding actually begin when Clinton was still in the White House. The overall market was down more than 10 percent from its peak by January of 2001 and the Nasdaq was down close to 30 percent.

This collapse was the basis for 2001 recession which began less than 2 months after President Bush stepped into the White House.

In general, talk about budget surplus is pure gimmickry according to Hans Sennholz.  And after reading this essay, you will never have felt more betrayed by the PR efforts of a conman.

Imagine a corporation suffering losses and being deep in debt. In order to boost its stock prices and the bonuses of its officers, the corporation quietly borrows funds in the bond market and uses them not only to cover its losses but also to retire some corporate stock and thereby bid up its price. And imagine the management boasting of profits and surpluses. But that’s what the Clinton Administration has been doing with alacrity and brazenness. It suffers sizeable budget deficits, increasing the national debt by hundreds of billions of dollars, but uses trust funds to meet expenditures and then boasts of surpluses which excites the spending predilection of politicians in both parties.

If a corporation executive were to engage in such deceit, the Commissioners of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), who are supposed to promote full public disclosure and protect the investing public against malpractice in the securities markets, would intervene with severity; when a president of the United States and his appointees engage in similar practices, all his men fall silent.

The surplus deception is clearly discernible in the statistics of national debt. While the spenders are boasting about surpluses, the national debt is rising year after year. In 1998, the first year of the legerdemain surplus, it rose from $5.413 trillion to $5.526 trillion, due to a deficit of $112.9 billion. Since then it has risen to $5.643 trillion today, October 15, 2000, with another deficit of $117 billion.

So when H.L. Mencken says that elections are an auction for the advanced sale of stolen goods, you kind of get the picture.

And still people love Clinton.  Least the media does, and the media are the opinion makers after all.

This image is very powerful.  It’s got the red, white, and blue as a backdrop to shape the foundation of your opinion.  It’s got a familiar face, an elder statesman raising his left hand, not the right-hand of Heil Hitler, but the left hand of a plea and supplication.